The NCAA, which is embroiled in a tough legal battle and facing mounting criticism over many of its policies, has selected a lawyer who specializes in internal investigations and regulatory matters as its new general counsel and vice president for legal affairs.
Donald M. Remy’s legal career spans two decades, much of it in government or government-related work. He spent six years at Fannie Mae, the beleaguered mortgage-finance company, where he was a senior lawyer and a business executive, and three years at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division. Early in his career, he served for four years as assistant to the general counsel of the U.S. Army. Since 2006, Remy has worked at the giant global law firm Latham & Watkins, where he is a partner.
The NCAA is no stranger to legal challenges, having routinely—and, for the most part, successfully—battled lawsuits brought by disgruntled athletes, coaches, and others. But when Remy begins his new job on March 14, he faces a particularly charged docket reflective of the many tensions in college sports right now.
At the moment, the association is defending a consolidated federal antitrust lawsuit in California that was brought by a group of former Division I athletes who claim they should profit from NCAA- and college-licensed products that use their names or likenesses. Some legal experts say the lawsuit, if successful, could bring about major changes to amateurism, a tenet the NCAA holds dear. And lawyers with the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, meantime, have shown interest in the association’s scholarship rules.
Remy’s exposure to the inner workings of college athletics, though, has been limited. He has coached AAU basketball and baseball in his home state of Virginia for a decade, said Bob Williams, an NCAA spokesman. And though he played both sports on intramural teams during his undergraduate days at Louisiana State University—he later earned a law degree from Howard University—Remy was not a varsity athlete.
This appeared not to trouble Mark Emmert, the association’s new president, who has been on the job since early October. Emmert said in a statement that Remy emerged as the top candidate after a national search: “His formidable legal talents, coupled with his longstanding commitment to amateur athletics, make him the ideal candidate for serving on my team.”
(Photo courtesy of the NCAA)
11 Responses to NCAA Taps Washington Lawyer as New General Counsel
eboknows - January 4, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Does anyone else see the irony of an organization that has profited off and exploited mostly young black male football and basketball players will now be defended in court by a black male?
jranelli - December 6, 2011 at 3:47 am
machiavel’ is far too complex for this assignment…the prototype these days should be mackers (from the scottish play).
Trey Medley - December 6, 2011 at 7:32 am
I thought it had become increasingly accepted that far from representative of his political thought, Machiavelli’s *The Prince* is at the very least a short piece incongruous with most of Machiavelli’s writing, if not outright satire of the Medici family (recall he wrote it in exile for some of the things he said prior to it, things he would go back to saying after he wrote the Prince that advocated republics rather than monarchies). Granted, we are unlikely to change the meaning of the term Machiavellian any time soon, but we should try to avoid declarations that are probably untrue such as ‘Machiavelli advocated deceit.’
electronicmuse - December 6, 2011 at 9:59 am
Actually, those who know how to look carefully can tell when someone is lying immediately: their lips move when they speak.
raymond_j_ritchie - December 6, 2011 at 10:44 am
Phrenology was judging character and intelligence of people from bumps on their skulls. It was classic 19th century pseudoscience. Today we laugh at the phrenology diagrams of skulls because we are now so much more sophisticated. You have got to be joking.
Judging character and intelligence from a MRI scan is just high tech phrenology and is no more likely to work.
However, even today some people are said to “not look intelligent.” That is quite irrational. I am one of those unfortunates that look like the village idiot even though I am not. Upset me terribly when I was young. I have now learnt to sometimes take advantage of it.
I am one of those few people who has actually read Macheavelli. I found very little in The Prince that surprised me except how little things have changed in 500 years. I have also read the Discourses on Livy. His unacknowledged effects (from both books) on the US constitution are obvious. He would have instantly recognised the Office of the US Presidency as an elective monarchy. He also well understood not only that republics tended to decay but why they tended to do so: something americans prefer not to read about and rarely quote the weaknesses of republics he recognised.
Some of his ideas have served well over the centuries, for example his low opinion of mercenaries and the consequences of being propped up by foreign troops are as valid now as in 1500. He also noted that some cultures can be easily defeated in the field but the countries cannot be occupied militarily because of the feral nature of the population. He understood the perils of imperialism by suction. His comments on populism were not new but were spot on, as were his insights into why political reform is so rarely successful and so unpredictable in its consequences. He understood the venal nature of mankind “A man is more likely to forgive the execution of his father than a rise in taxes”. The hip-pocket nerve is the most sensitive organ of the body and is not very amenable to reason.
Some of his ideas have not served well. Pacification of unruly provinces by setting up colonies has not worked in most cases. He recognised the problem but his suggested solution has not usually worked and actually made it worse and made the problem permanent.
renellin - December 6, 2011 at 11:47 am
Additionally, I will never understand those interrogatories that contain statements like those outlined above. Many have the obvious answer that many people won’t give a second thought to, but doesn’t actually address the issue it seems to be confronting.
renellin - December 6, 2011 at 11:58 am
Didn’t you forget to include the name of the subgroup you wished to disparage with that statement? Or did you mean to say everyone is constantly lying?
jamesebryan - December 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Regarding this Mach-IV test – Wouldn’t answering the first question depend upon one’s definition of “better,” (do we mean morally, emotionally, financially?) and wouldn’t answering the second question in the negative be as likely to indicate a pessimistic outlook instead of a manipulative personality? And what if it turns out the answer to the third is that it is objectively true, depending again on what is meant by “best?” Somewhere there has to be a scientific study establishing that people are reassured by having their preconceived notions confirmed and upset by having them challenged. If the best way to handle people is to keep them happy, and you can do that by telling them what they want to hear, you could be an entirely considerate, well-meaning teller of little white lies, which would make you an enabler, not a Machiavellian.
Eileen Sullivan - December 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I’ve known so many of them!
katisumas - December 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm
On behalf of Machiavelli’s memory, I thank you.
It pretty much appears that what he was writing was a way to express his objections to the way power was seized and held in the city states of his time. (which used to be republics before these princes took over….)
12080243 - December 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Ken Wallace [an administrator at State University] had never read Machiavelli, but he was
in tune with—and quite naturally applied the principles of—The Prince. Professor Rufus [McCoy] had rigorously studied Machiavelli, but wasn’t in tune with—nor did he apply the principles of—The Prince. Too bad for Rufus, because Machiavelli would have advised him that
“[T]here is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the [administration] in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have actual experience of it.”
Why didn’t Rufus consider Machiavelli’s admonition? It wasn’t, as noted, because he was unfamiliar with Machiavelli’s keen observations. No, instead, he was a true believer, an academic, a denizen of a rational community: “State University is a world class institution dedicated to truth, evidence, and sound reasoning; we apply the highest ethical principles in all of our activities.” So says the Faculty Guidebook.
The Faculty Guidebook describes an altogether different community for Rufus than Machiavelli advised for the Prince. Or so Rufus would have argued, if he’d thought to. So, he would have scoffed at the notion that he was pushing “to initiate a new order of things.” Or so he would have argued, if he’d thought to.
Soon to be released, see, “Rufus McCoy and Profiteers in the Ivory Tower,” by Marc DePree, http://www.usmnews.net